The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
selected dog/sky.
The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image to make
strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows tons of noise.
The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.

Advertisements

Burgerman wrote:
> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
> news:0Nk0k.260$7B3.161@edtnps91...
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>
>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her picture...
>>
>> Hope you enjoy,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>
> Your unedited image is better although the dog is a bit blurred..
>
> The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
> selected dog/sky.
> The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image to
> make strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows tons
> of noise. The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.
>
> Just my opinion of course.

"Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
news:4842cbc2$0$30956$...
> Burgerman wrote:
>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
>> news:0Nk0k.260$7B3.161@edtnps91...
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>
>>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her
>>> picture...
>>>
>>> Hope you enjoy,
>>> Dudley
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Your unedited image is better although the dog is a bit blurred..
>>
>> The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
>> selected dog/sky.
>> The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image to
>> make strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows tons
>> of noise. The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.
>>
>> Just my opinion of course.
>
> Also mine
>
> --
> Bertrand

Thanks for the feedback guys. It helps a lot.

This is the first time my son has tried this type of post processing, so
there's going to be a bit of a learning curve. Any suggestions on how to
improve the application of effects?

"Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
news:b3B0k.289$Gn.49@edtnps92...
>
> "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
> news:4842cbc2$0$30956$...
>> Burgerman wrote:
>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
>>> news:0Nk0k.260$7B3.161@edtnps91...
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her
>>>> picture...
>>>>
>>>> Hope you enjoy,
>>>> Dudley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your unedited image is better although the dog is a bit blurred..
>>>
>>> The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
>>> selected dog/sky.
>>> The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image to
>>> make strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows tons
>>> of noise. The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.
>>>
>>> Just my opinion of course.
>>
>> Also mine
>>
>> --
>> Bertrand
>
> Thanks for the feedback guys. It helps a lot.
>
> This is the first time my son has tried this type of post processing, so
> there's going to be a bit of a learning curve. Any suggestions on how to
> improve the application of effects?
>
>

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> Dudley Hanks wrote
>> Ofnuts wrote
>>> Burgerman wrote:
>>>> Dudley Hanks wrote
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her
>>>>> picture...
>>>>>
>>>> Your unedited image is better although the dog is a bit blurred..
>>>>
>>>> The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
>>>> selected dog/sky.
>>>> The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image to
>>>> make strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows tons
>>>> of noise. The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.
>>>>
>>>> Just my opinion of course.
>>> Also mine
>>>
>> Thanks for the feedback guys. It helps a lot.
>>
>> This is the first time my son has tried this type of post processing, so
>> there's going to be a bit of a learning curve. Any suggestions on how to
>> improve the application of effects?
>
> Also, any comments on removing noise with Photoshop?
>
> How does one do it? Should it be done first?

I've tried Noiseware Community Edition and it works OK for free. Use the
original and noise reduced version in layers and leave detail in some
areas where the noise isn't a problem. For your background blur, feather
the selection (select menu).

Also, the camera may already be applying a lot of noise reduction, and a
lot of sharpening. See if those can be turned down, then you sharpen &
noise reduce only as needed in photoshop. If it's not oversharpened, it
may not need to have the noise toned down.

"Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
news:b3B0k.289$Gn.49@edtnps92...
>
> "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
> news:4842cbc2$0$30956$...
>> Burgerman wrote:
>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
>>> news:0Nk0k.260$7B3.161@edtnps91...
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her
>>>> picture...
>>>>
>>>> Hope you enjoy,
>>>> Dudley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your unedited image is better although the dog is a bit blurred..
>>>
>>> The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
>>> selected dog/sky.
>>> The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image to
>>> make strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows tons
>>> of noise. The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.
>>>
>>> Just my opinion of course.
>>
>> Also mine
>>
>> --
>> Bertrand
>
> Thanks for the feedback guys. It helps a lot.
>
> This is the first time my son has tried this type of post processing, so
> there's going to be a bit of a learning curve. Any suggestions on how to
> improve the application of effects?
>
> Thanks,
> Dudley
>
>
>

First it would be better to start with a sharper shot because trying to
sharpen things after the event to make up for it just makes more visible
noise at the same time. When selecting the dogs outline use large feathered
edges so the join cant be seen.

Most oif those things wouldnt need fixing if you used a camera with less
noise to begin with and a faster shutter speed and more accurate focus. But
the only way to learn is to play. For many hours...

"Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
news:ZxB0k.5917$...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks wrote
>>> Ofnuts wrote
>>>> Burgerman wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Hanks wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her
>>>>>> picture...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your unedited image is better although the dog is a bit blurred..
>>>>>
>>>>> The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
>>>>> selected dog/sky.
>>>>> The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image
>>>>> to make strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows
>>>>> tons of noise. The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my opinion of course.
>>>> Also mine
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback guys. It helps a lot.
>>>
>>> This is the first time my son has tried this type of post processing, so
>>> there's going to be a bit of a learning curve. Any suggestions on how
>>> to improve the application of effects?
>>
>> Also, any comments on removing noise with Photoshop?
>>
>> How does one do it? Should it be done first?
>
> I've tried Noiseware Community Edition and it works OK for free. Use the
> original and noise reduced version in layers and leave detail in some
> areas where the noise isn't a problem. For your background blur, feather
> the selection (select menu).
>
> Also, the camera may already be applying a lot of noise reduction, and a
> lot of sharpening. See if those can be turned down, then you sharpen &
> noise reduce only as needed in photoshop. If it's not oversharpened, it
> may not need to have the noise toned down.
>
> --
> Paul Furman

So, am I right in concluding that sharpening enhances noise?

I'm not sure if I can turn down noise reduction in camera, but I'll check
into it. As for in camera sharpening, I think there's a couple of things I
can do:

I've got my camera's colour mode set to vivid. I think I'll set that to
normal / off / whatever the term is for it. That may get rid of extra
in-camera sharpening. Or, there is a custom colour setting where I can set
things like saturation, sharpness and contrast. I could try using this mode
and reduce the sharpness a tad.

First, I'll go with just going to the normal mode and see what happens.

Regarding the blurry dog, I was shooting stopped down to f/8 because I
wanted to see how my camera's settings compared to the sunny 16 rule. It
was a bit of a cloudy day, and I was shooting in a bit of shade, so I
figured that the sunny 16 rule would probably call for about f/8 at 1/100
sec for the ISO 100 setting. My camera actually chose 1/125, but that's
pretty close. I was also using a flash fill because the sun wasn't angled
in from the front, but was coming in more from the side, possibly even a bit
behind.

I guess that little Breton's movement was a bit much for the 1/125, although
I thought it would have been quick enough.

I suppose, the bit of a blur could also have come from not focusing on the
pup. But, i thought that she should have been the subject the focusing
system would have chosen.

"Burgerman" <> wrote in message
news:yLC0k.13173$2...
> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
> news:b3B0k.289$Gn.49@edtnps92...
>>
>> "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
>> news:4842cbc2$0$30956$...
>>> Burgerman wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:0Nk0k.260$7B3.161@edtnps91...
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her
>>>>> picture...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope you enjoy,
>>>>> Dudley
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your unedited image is better although the dog is a bit blurred..
>>>>
>>>> The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
>>>> selected dog/sky.
>>>> The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image to
>>>> make strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows tons
>>>> of noise. The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.
>>>>
>>>> Just my opinion of course.
>>>
>>> Also mine
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bertrand
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback guys. It helps a lot.
>>
>> This is the first time my son has tried this type of post processing, so
>> there's going to be a bit of a learning curve. Any suggestions on how to
>> improve the application of effects?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> First it would be better to start with a sharper shot because trying to
> sharpen things after the event to make up for it just makes more visible
> noise at the same time. When selecting the dogs outline use large
> feathered edges so the join cant be seen.
>
> Most oif those things wouldnt need fixing if you used a camera with less
> noise to begin with and a faster shutter speed and more accurate focus.
> But the only way to learn is to play. For many hours...
>
>

I couldn't agree with you more.

Thanks for the tips on applying affects. I'll pass them on to my son. He's
quite interested in playing with the program, but he's more into turning
George W. into a one-eyed freak than seriously improving images. But, I
think he'll come around in time.

As for the camera, I am contemplating moving up to an S series Canon, or
something similar, eventually, but the A720 is pocketable, and I do most of
my shots while I'm just plodding around.

It's been a while since I took any serious pics, so I've got a number of
things to relearn. And, it doesn't help when I show an obviously flawed pic
to someone only to hear, "yeah, that's great!" because they just can't bring
themselves to critiquing a blind guy's handiwork.

That's why I like this group so much. you guys know what you're talking
about, well, at least most of you, and you cut right to the chase. It's
both refreshing and helpful.

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:03:51 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<> wrote:
>It's been a while since I took any serious pics, so I've got a number of
>things to relearn. And, it doesn't help when I show an obviously flawed pic
>to someone only to hear, "yeah, that's great!" because they just can't bring
>themselves to critiquing a blind guy's handiwork.
>
>That's why I like this group so much. you guys know what you're talking
>about, well, at least most of you, and you cut right to the chase. It's
>both refreshing and helpful.
>

I'm a little confused by this. A black dog's picture was taken with
the sun coming over the dog's left shoulder (right as you look at the
image) and the editing was done to blur the background.

I don't understand why. The background is not the problem. Any
editing done will result in an image that doesn't show much in the way
of detail of the dog. It's going to remain an image of a black dog in
shadow.

It seems to me that the photographer would take a number of shots and
select the one that was taken under the best lighting conditions, the
best position considering the background, and shows the most detail of
the dog, and *then*, if he wanted to, blur the background. It's not
that difficult to get a dog to move around.

A black dog is a difficult shot, so multiple images to choose from
should be a given. The alternative is to dye the dog a lighter color.
Golden Labs are easier to photograph.

"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:03:51 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <> wrote:
>
>>It's been a while since I took any serious pics, so I've got a number of
>>things to relearn. And, it doesn't help when I show an obviously flawed
>>pic
>>to someone only to hear, "yeah, that's great!" because they just can't
>>bring
>>themselves to critiquing a blind guy's handiwork.
>>
>>That's why I like this group so much. you guys know what you're talking
>>about, well, at least most of you, and you cut right to the chase. It's
>>both refreshing and helpful.
>>
>
> I'm a little confused by this. A black dog's picture was taken with
> the sun coming over the dog's left shoulder (right as you look at the
> image) and the editing was done to blur the background.
>
> I don't understand why. The background is not the problem. Any
> editing done will result in an image that doesn't show much in the way
> of detail of the dog. It's going to remain an image of a black dog in
> shadow.

Don't take it too seriously, Tony. I was just out for a walk with a puppy,
and I was playing around with my camera, trying to find out if its meter
produced results roughly in accordance with the "sunny 16" rule. I took
some shots out in the middle of a greenbelt area where the sun was
unobstructed, and I took some in a couple of shady areas. None were meant
to be published on the net. They were just practice shots. I was more
interested in the EXIF info than the shots themselves.

But, I always get a few people to look at what I've done before I decide to
trash them or save them. This particular shot got some chuckles because of
the dog's pose, not the fantastic photography, so I thought I'd put it up
for a more critical review, and I'm glad I did.

I was under the impression that the Canon A720 produces a fairly clean image
at ISO 100. But, this image has alerted me to the fact that noise can be a
problem. I'm going to play around with the settings a bit, and try to clean
up my technique so that, when I am trying to get a good shot, I'll have a
better chance.

As for the background, I asked my son to try his luck at blurring it a bit.
I thought it would be good experience for him because he's showing an
interest in Photoshop in particular and photography in general. He went out
and bought himself an A570, and is shooting up a storm.

Don't worry, I have no illusions of grandeeur here. The shot was never
intended as a serious portrait.
>
> It seems to me that the photographer would take a number of shots and
> select the one that was taken under the best lighting conditions, the
> best position considering the background, and shows the most detail of
> the dog, and *then*, if he wanted to, blur the background. It's not
> that difficult to get a dog to move around.
>
You've got that right, Tony. In my case, the difficult part is to get the
moving dog into my image. I had plenty of shots with part of its head
missing, a nice shot of its rump, and a few where I missed it completely.
This shot was probably the best of the lot. But, don't forget, I was more
interested in the EXIF data than the shots themselves.
> A black dog is a difficult shot, so multiple images to choose from
> should be a given. The alternative is to dye the dog a lighter color.
> Golden Labs are easier to photograph.
>
I thought about inverting the image after the background was blurred, but
the mouth area would have had to been reworked ...

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:24:01 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the photographer would take a number of shots and
>> select the one that was taken under the best lighting conditions, the
>> best position considering the background, and shows the most detail of
>> the dog, and *then*, if he wanted to, blur the background. It's not
>> that difficult to get a dog to move around.
>>
>You've got that right, Tony. In my case, the difficult part is to get the
>moving dog into my image. I had plenty of shots with part of its head
>missing, a nice shot of its rump, and a few where I missed it completely.
>This shot was probably the best of the lot. But, don't forget, I was more
>interested in the EXIF data than the shots themselves.

I take your shots at face value, Dudley. While I know that your
vision is impaired, I treat your photographs like any other
photographs. I feel that this is the way you want to be treated.

Take more shots so you have a larger selection to choose from. The
EXIF will be in all of them.

"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:24:01 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <> wrote:
>
>>> It seems to me that the photographer would take a number of shots and
>>> select the one that was taken under the best lighting conditions, the
>>> best position considering the background, and shows the most detail of
>>> the dog, and *then*, if he wanted to, blur the background. It's not
>>> that difficult to get a dog to move around.
>>>
>>You've got that right, Tony. In my case, the difficult part is to get the
>>moving dog into my image. I had plenty of shots with part of its head
>>missing, a nice shot of its rump, and a few where I missed it completely.
>>This shot was probably the best of the lot. But, don't forget, I was more
>>interested in the EXIF data than the shots themselves.
>
> I take your shots at face value, Dudley. While I know that your
> vision is impaired, I treat your photographs like any other
> photographs. I feel that this is the way you want to be treated.

Thank you, Tony, that's exactly what I want. Well, perhaps, I'd even be
happy getting a rougher ride than most would get because it's the nitty
gritty flaws that are the hardest to isolate, identify and remedy.

Recently, I gave somebody a bit of flak over comments that were made about
my two dinos picture. The fellow had commented that the pictures were a
failure because there was a bit of camera shake in it, so the A720's IS
hadn't been able to compensate for it.

I got a bit riled, not because of the criticism, but because I thought that
the guy was being overly critical of a $200 point-and-shoot. Had he
criticised me, personally, for not holding the camera steady enough, I would
have had no problem with that since that was the case. But, when a point
and shoot is said to be flawed because a bit of camera shake is visible in a
shot that was held nearly 20 times longer than would be normal for the lens
focal length being used, I thought that was a little too harsh.
>
> Take more shots so you have a larger selection to choose from. The
> EXIF will be in all of them.

That's a good point. The A720 does have a drive mode, but, at only about
1.7 frames per second, I hesitate to call it "burst" mode.

Given my style of just trying to track what's happening and then trying to
identify significant moments in time when a good image is likely to be
captured, the multi-shot mode might work better for me. I'll give it a try
and see what happens.

Up till now, I've been a bit self-concious about using the multi-shot mode,
because I've been cognicent that a machine gun approach could be interpreted
as a means of "getting something good more from coincidence than from
concious effort -- kind of like Beethoven coming up with a good composition
more from hitting a lot of keys than from his knowing music theory.

But, as you've pointed out, this is a tool that is available, so maybe it's
time to implement it a bit more.

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:46:50 GMT, Dudley Hanks wrote:
> I've got my camera's colour mode set to vivid. I think I'll set that to
> normal / off / whatever the term is for it. That may get rid of extra
> in-camera sharpening. Or, there is a custom colour setting where I
> can set things like saturation, sharpness and contrast. I could try
> using this mode and reduce the sharpness a tad.

Yes, the Custom Color Mode is what you need to use. In it you can
adjust the Red, Green and Blue levels to approximate the Vivid
setting you're currently using, if you want to continue using that
effect. In addition, (as you noted above) C.C. Mode allows you to
also adjust the Saturation, Sharpness and Contrast settings. I
don't think that you need to turn Vivid mode to Normal or Off - it
probably vanishes when you select the Custom Color Mode.

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 03:33:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<> wrote:
>Up till now, I've been a bit self-concious about using the multi-shot mode,
>because I've been cognicent that a machine gun approach could be interpreted
>as a means of "getting something good more from coincidence than from
>concious effort -- kind of like Beethoven coming up with a good composition
>more from hitting a lot of keys than from his knowing music theory.
>

Hah! What makes you think the really good images linked here are
one-off efforts? Most of us shoot 20-30 shots or more and *select*
the one from that group that works. Maybe not on burst mode, but
nobody comes back from a shoot with one or two images on the card.

That's why there are SD cards that hold hundreds of images. They're
not all bought by people going on vacation where they can't upload.
Some people fill up the card in a day's shooting.

My daughter and I went out together recently in a nature park. She
shot 410 images and I shot 37. She cut her teeth on digital and I'm
still slow to shoot because mentally I'm still shooting film.

In rec.photo.digital tony cooper <> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 03:33:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <> wrote:
>>Up till now, I've been a bit self-concious about using the multi-shot mode,
>>because I've been cognicent that a machine gun approach could be interpreted
>>as a means of "getting something good more from coincidence than from
>>concious effort -- kind of like Beethoven coming up with a good composition
>>more from hitting a lot of keys than from his knowing music theory.
> Hah! What makes you think the really good images linked here are
> one-off efforts? Most of us shoot 20-30 shots or more and *select*
> the one from that group that works. Maybe not on burst mode, but
> nobody comes back from a shoot with one or two images on the card.
> That's why there are SD cards that hold hundreds of images. They're
> not all bought by people going on vacation where they can't upload.
> Some people fill up the card in a day's shooting.
> My daughter and I went out together recently in a nature park. She
> shot 410 images and I shot 37. She cut her teeth on digital and I'm
> still slow to shoot because mentally I'm still shooting film.
> She ended up with more "keepers" than I did, too.

I'm having some success with getting over my old film-based reluctance
to "waste" photographs, although I still do sometimes come back with
one very carefully composed prize shot and find that I got the focus
slightly off. I recently realised, however, that I'm failing to take
advantage of another useful possibility of cheap images: the helpful
accessory photograph. For example, snapping a couple of street names
or landmarks to remind me where I was, doing another wider version of
the prize shot to include a white colour balance reference.

These aren't photographs I'd ever show to anyone else, but they help
to improve the quality and notes on those I do. The weird thing is
that I do more of that kind of accessory photography with a cheap
phone camera than my big black "serious" camera because it still seems
a waste to use such an expensive lens and so many megabytes to
photograph a street name.

"Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
news:b3B0k.289$Gn.49@edtnps92...
>
> "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
> news:4842cbc2$0$30956$...
>> Burgerman wrote:
>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
>>> news:0Nk0k.260$7B3.161@edtnps91...
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her
>>>> picture...
>>>>
>>>> Hope you enjoy,
>>>> Dudley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your unedited image is better although the dog is a bit blurred..
>>>
>>> The edited image shows an obvious "line" around the dog where you have
>>> selected dog/sky.
>>> The dog was maybe sharpened but it has caused the noise in the image to
>>> make strange colours on highlights in the fur and the tongue shows tons
>>> of noise. The sky was blurred or smeared to remove noise.
>>>
>>> Just my opinion of course.
>>
>> Also mine
>>
>> --
>> Bertrand
>
> Thanks for the feedback guys. It helps a lot.
>
> This is the first time my son has tried this type of post processing, so
> there's going to be a bit of a learning curve. Any suggestions on how to
> improve the application of effects?
>
> Thanks,
> Dudley
>

The reason you were having to clean up the sky is that noise is directly
proportional to the sensor physical size. (not the number of pixels).
Actually the more pixels there is on the same sized sensor the more noise.
The smaller the seperate photosites (pixels) on the sensor the greater the
amplification has to be to get a signal as it captured less light. Its this
that introduces noise.

Now all point and shoots are limited in the size of the sensor because they
need a lense that can "cover" the sensor area. Nobody wants a point and
shoot with a huge SLR style lense do they? It defeats the purpose. So
sensors in all point and shoots are absolutely tiny. It has a further
advantage in that you dont have to pay hundreds for a decent lense!

My big heavy D300 and it equally heavy large lenses are essential because
the sensor may still only have 12 million pixels but its much bigger than
that used in any point and shoot at 2/3rds the size of 35mm film. Some
Cannons and the Nikon D3 use full sized (35mm film size) sensors. The main
advantage here is even lower noise. And therefore all these cameras can
shoot at say 400 to 800 iso and still give less noise than most point and
shoots. So your sky would have been smoother, and the shutter speed say
500th at the same F8 setting you chose so the dog would be sharper. But it
would cost much more and the weight and size isnt so easy...

"Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
news:0Nk0k.260$7B3.161@edtnps91...
> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>
> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her picture...
>
> Hope you enjoy,
> Dudley
>
>
You’ve gotten some good comments, but the one thing that everyone seamed to
miss is that the edited version has been up-sampled by about 40-50%. That
will not help the image quality and there is no good reason to do it here?

One technique to blur the background is to make a duplicate layer on top of
the original, blur it, and then with a large soft (feathered) brush erase
the areas you want to see detail exposed. Change the opacity of the eraser
to control the noise vs. detail.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital tony cooper <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 03:33:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <> wrote:
>
>>> Up till now, I've been a bit self-concious about using the multi-shot mode,
>>> because I've been cognicent that a machine gun approach could be interpreted
>>> as a means of "getting something good more from coincidence than from
>>> concious effort -- kind of like Beethoven coming up with a good composition
>>> more from hitting a lot of keys than from his knowing music theory.
>
>> Hah! What makes you think the really good images linked here are
>> one-off efforts? Most of us shoot 20-30 shots or more and *select*
>> the one from that group that works. Maybe not on burst mode, but
>> nobody comes back from a shoot with one or two images on the card.
>
>> That's why there are SD cards that hold hundreds of images. They're
>> not all bought by people going on vacation where they can't upload.
>> Some people fill up the card in a day's shooting.
>
>> My daughter and I went out together recently in a nature park. She
>> shot 410 images and I shot 37. She cut her teeth on digital and I'm
>> still slow to shoot because mentally I'm still shooting film.
>
>> She ended up with more "keepers" than I did, too.

My two 2GB cards hold less than 100 10MP images in raw plus jpeg. I can
easily fill one or a bit more while out for a day's shooting. I only
save the raws for maybe 25% of those. Here's a few dozen keepers from a
few weeks of shooting: http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/5-30-08

> I'm having some success with getting over my old film-based reluctance
> to "waste" photographs, although I still do sometimes come back with
> one very carefully composed prize shot and find that I got the focus
> slightly off. I recently realised, however, that I'm failing to take
> advantage of another useful possibility of cheap images: the helpful
> accessory photograph. For example, snapping a couple of street names
> or landmarks to remind me where I was, doing another wider version of
> the prize shot to include a white colour balance reference.
>
> These aren't photographs I'd ever show to anyone else, but they help
> to improve the quality and notes on those I do. The weird thing is
> that I do more of that kind of accessory photography with a cheap
> phone camera than my big black "serious" camera because it still seems
> a waste to use such an expensive lens and so many megabytes to
> photograph a street name.

"jimkramer" <> wrote in message
news:g20rnm$8ua$...
> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
> news:0Nk0k.260$7B3.161@edtnps91...
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>
>> Little Breton doesn't get very excited when somebody takes her picture...
>>
>> Hope you enjoy,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
> You've gotten some good comments, but the one thing that everyone seamed
> to miss is that the edited version has been up-sampled by about 40-50%.
> That will not help the image quality and there is no good reason to do it
> here?
>
>
>
> One technique to blur the background is to make a duplicate layer on top
> of the original, blur it, and then with a large soft (feathered) brush
> erase the areas you want to see detail exposed. Change the opacity of the
> eraser to control the noise vs. detail.
>
>
>
> -Jim
>
>

Actually, Jim, I was wondering about the up-sizing myself. I first noticed
it when I was setting up the page on the net, the file size of the image
Robert gave me was about 45 megs, and I thought that was a bit too much to
expect everybody to download -- especially when one considers the original,
uncropped image was less than 3 megs. Accordingly, I got my daughter to
convert it to a more acceptably sized .jpg file (Robert was at work).

I'm not sure if Robert up-sized it on purpose, or whether it happened while
he was doing the editing, and he possibly didn't realize it. I haven't had
a chance to talk to him about it yet, but I'm curious what happened there.

You're definitely right, though, Jim, there was no reason for the upsizing,
especially since it was just a humourous pic I happened to get while doing
some experimentation, and it was too blurry to be of much use -- especially
if it would be printed at a larger size.

Thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for the editing tips. I'll go over
them with my son as soon as we can get some time together.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!